Question of the Day

Whose side of the story do you believe?

Lieberman is no moral compass

The leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State recently asked Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman to temper his "religiosity."They say they are interested only in protecting the sensibilities of nonbelievers and their precious principle of separation of church and state. The real reason for their criticism of Mr. Lieberman, however, is their realization that faith-based Judeo-Christian values can be used to impede the imposition of their secular liberal agenda on our society.They hold in disdain those who are guided by religious faith, which they regard as an irrational belief system. Their own agenda, however, is based on the irrational faith that our society will benefit if we promote civil rights without regard for biblical values and social consequences.Actually, they have little reason to be concerned about Mr. Lieberman. His record indicates that, while he observes the traditions of Judaism, he is not willing to apply the religious values those traditions are meant to inculcate.In May 1993, Mr. Lieberman nominated Roberta Achtenberg, a lesbian activist from California, for a senior position at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Before her nomination, Ms. Achtenberg came to national prominence by seeking to punish the Boy Scouts for their policy of barring homosexuals as scoutmasters.Orthodox Rabbi Abraham Gross, a clergyman who had struggled against Ms. Achtenberg's homosexual agenda in California for years, warned: "Her views are a danger to traditional moral and family values."Mr. Lieberman also has supported abortion on demand, even to the extent of opposing a ban on partial-birth abortions, that is, the killing of a fully formed baby during the last weeks of pregnancy. The American Medical Association and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop have deemed this procedure to be unnecessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Mr. Lieberman's position, therefore is not only contrary to the basic premise of Judaic ethics (respect for the sanctity of human life). but is unwarranted on practical grounds as well.Mr. Lieberman also has chosen to champion the rights of homosexuals, even to the extent that he would make it a crime to deny employment for someone who engages in unnatural sexual practices that are explicitly condemned by the Torah.To the Democrats, Mr. Lieberman is a "moral compass." To the rest of us, however, he is just another Democrat.DAVID W. HARRISRegional coordinatorThe American Jewish AssemblyWashington

Gore plans to pay debt with Social Security and Medicare surplus

The Gore-Lieberman plan to eliminate the debt in 11 years resorts to pillaging Social Security and Medicare.According to Vice President Al Gore's book "Prosperity for America's Families", which outlines the plan, of the $3 trillion debt, $2.3 trillion will be paid from the Social Security surplus, $450 billion from the Medicare surplus, and $300 billion from an additional Surplus Reserve Fund. (Could the latter be the $300 billion in rainy-day funds?) Interestingly, the book (Page 10) sums these numbers to $3 trillion. My granddaughter confirmed my addition at $3.05 trillion. Mr. Gore treats $50 billion as if it is so insignificant it can be dropped for rounding.This leads me to believe that Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman are promising to pay down the debt (to be achieved with Social Security/ Medicare funds) only for the sake of getting elected. By the time they promise to have finished, in 2012, the subsequent administration will have to face the task of saving Social Security and Medicare.I only have gotten through the first 27 pages of this fairy tale, but I don't think there is any necessity to go on. This plan is, to use Mr. Gore's own words, "a risky scheme."NOEL FINDLEYAlvin, Texas

Setting straight misinformation about DARE anti-drug efforts

Bobby Charles' Sept. 8 article "Defending DARE … and apple pie" is right on target.Your readers also need to know that the pattern of destruction used by proponents of drug legalization is well-documented even in the courts. Effective anti-drug programs are not helpful to drug legalizers' goals. Their misinformation campaigns frequently make headlines and, we believe, they have done immeasurable harm to America's efforts to prevent drug use especially among teens.Attempts to destroy Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE, have been particularly vicious, leading DARE to file a $10 million lawsuit against writer Stephen Glass, the author of some anti-DARE articles published in the New Republic (March 3, 1997) and Rolling Stone (March 5, 1998).The New Republic fired Stephen Glass when the scandal became public. In a review of his work, the New Republic discovered that at least 27 of his 41 published articles were entirely or partially made up. This was described by Vanity Fair magazine as "a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism."As part of the agreement to dismiss the libel suit, Glass wrote a letter of apology, agreed to a substantial monetary settlement and also agreed to submit to an extensive interview by DARE America to answer questions about the origins, preparation and editing of his work on DARE.His January 25, 1999, letter of apology states, "I want to express my regret and apology for falsely disparaging DARE in the above-referenced articles by willfully fabricating several incidents and quotes about DARE and its supporters in the articles, mostly attributed to anonymous sources. I did this in order to sensationalize the stories without regard to the harm and detriment my fabrications and falsehoods would cause to DARE and people affiliated with DARE."As the articles reflect, I communicated frequently with people and organizations whom I knew to support, and who (in some cases) told me they supported, legalization of illegal drugs and were anti-DARE. In preparing the articles, I gave credence to what I heard from the anti-DARE people and did not credit the information DARE supplied me. Officials at DARE provided me with information such as copies of evaluations of the program's effectiveness, most of which I discounted and was not ever published in the articles."I further acknowledge that the March l997 article in The New Republic, which contains many of the same fabrications as are in my March l998 article for Rolling Stone, played a significant role in attracting the interest of Rolling Stone and its editors. In editing the Rolling Stone article, I referred Rolling Stone's fact-checkers to my prior article in The New Republic, or to sources cited therein."Unfortunately, most who read or hear the pro-drug side of these issues never hear the corrections, or in some cases, the corrections are never made. We applaud Mr. Charles for his outspoken article and The Washington Times for its candid, unbiased reporting on these issues.JOYCE NALEPKAPresidentAmerica Cares Inc.Silver SpringJoyce Nalepka is also a founder and president of Drug-Free Youth America's Challenge and was president of the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, the organization chaired by Nancy Reagan during her tenure as first lady.

It is quite appropriate that Bobby Charles brings up DARE and apple pie in the same breath: Both are quite popular, and both are ineffective in reducing drug abuse.I have been asking DARE supporters for the past several years to send me the full text of any study that supports the idea that DARE has reduced drug use. Though I have managed to collect quite a body of research on DARE, I have yet to see any such evidence. If Mr. Charles has the research, I would like to see it. The future of our children is important, so it is time to get rational and stop believing that large doses of apple pie will prevent drug abuse.CLIFFORD A. SCHAFFERDirectorDRCNet Online Library of Drug PolicyCanyon Country, Calif. www.druglibrary.org